(PC) Smith v. Gibbs ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, No. 1:18-cv-00854-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 14 GIBBS, et al., PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 47) 16 17 Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On March 29, 2021, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 20 recommendations in full, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed this 21 action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available administrative 22 remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. No. 45.) Judgment was entered accordingly the same date and 23 the action was closed. (Doc. No. 46.) 24 On April 26, 2021, plaintiff filed the instant motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant 25 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. No. 47.) Plaintiff requests that the court vacate 26 the judgment and allow him to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 15 so he can pursue additional claims against defendants and also include additional 28 defendants to this action. (Id.) 1 Defendants filed an opposition on May 3, 2021. (Doc. No. 48.) Plaintiff filed a reply 2 | dated May 9, 2021, on May 13, 2021. (Doc. No. 49.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local 3 | Rule 230d). 4 Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriately brought under 5 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 6 | 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary judgment); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 7 | F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1995). The motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days 8 | after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), “[rJeconsideration is 9 | appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 10 | clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 11 | controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. IJ v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 12 It is clear from plaintiffs motion that he is seeking an opportunity to amend his complaint, 13 | rather than reconsideration of the court’s order. Plaintiff does not identify any change in 14 | controlling law, new evidence, or need to correct clear error or manifest injustice, nor does 15 | plaintiff explain how amending his complaint to add new claims will resolve his failure to exhaust 16 | administrative remedies. The court finds no grounds to reconsider its final order and judgment 17 || dismissing this action due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to 18 | filing suit as is required. If plaintiff has now exhausted his administrative remedies with respect 19 | to his claims, he may file a new action with this court and name any defendants against whom he 20 | now wishes to proceed. 21 For these reasons, plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the judgment, (Doc. No. 47), is 22 | denied. This action remains closed. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _May 28, 2021 Yole A Lara 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28